Supernatural Bitterness & Unpopular Opinions: You All Suck

[Wayward Son]

In my earlier post I was mostly focused in on Sam's perspective as opposed to the writers motivation for the plot line. In my opinion Jeremy Carver was a limited storyteller. Basically, it seems to me the idea behind seasons 8 and 9, and even 10 to a lesser extent, was "Lets have an issue that fundamentally divides the brothers (Sam not looking for Dean in purgatory S8,  Dean making the deal with Ezekiel/Gadreel S9 and the MoC drama in S10), have them bicker over it all season, and then reward the fans with a heartwarming reunion scene in the series finale ie the church scene at the end of 8, the "I lied" scene in season 9 and Dean killing Death so he can be with Sam in S10. 

The problem  is these conflicts often felt contrived and were clearly more story driven than character progression orientated. Plus, in my opinion, they often failed to show the emotional perspective of each character at times, which meant they both came off as unreasonable and cruel towards the other at certain points. I think this is especially true of Sam, which is why he experienced a fan backlash during parts of season eight and nine. However, Dean too had his ugly moments in my opinion. 

Edited February 15, 2017 by Wayward Son

[companionenvy]

Sam was intended to be the main character in the beginning of the show. I don't really think he ever was, and if he was, he certainly hasn't been since S3. Which I don't mind; Dean's -- IMO -- the more interesting character, and Jensen is the better actor. But I do like Sam, which is why the trend of having Dean get all the big wins and Sam (and Cas) cause a disproportionate number of apocalyptic happenings bothers me.

And for me, I think the reason it is bad writing as opposed to, "well, that's just Sam's character" is two-fold. One, while Sam does, I think, have a capacity for single-minded ruthlessness that Dean doesn't, what I see on screen is not Sam making substantially worse choices than Dean, it is Sam and Dean both doing phenomenally irresponsible things -- or, in certain milder cases, taking calculated, understandable risks that carry potentially major consequences -- and Sam's choices being the ones that lead to horrible results. While Dean may contribute to these negative consequences (breaking the first seal, taking the Mark that leads to the Darkness), he isn't the immediate, precipitating force. In addition, Dean's screw-ups are counterbalanced by many big wins that AREN'T simply a matter of Dean cleaning up a mess he directly started. It also irks me that Sam's huge sacrifice in Season 5 has now been undermined somewhat by the fact that Lucifer has escaped the cage anyway -- in large part because of something Sam did. Cas, IMO, gets the same treatment. Season 6 and the Godstiel arc was the show playing it fair - he made bad, if understandable choices and reaped the results. But agreeing to let Lucifer possess him, as Dean acknowledges, was a reasonable decision. It simply wound up turning out poorly, like Cas's plans so often do.  This is why I'm going to be really annoyed if Cas killing Billie has "cosmic consequences," when Dean killed freaking Death and no one, apparently, skipped a beat. Chuck-God didn't even mention that, though he took the time to tell Sam he'd made a terrible mistake in removing the mark from Dean (which he did, don't get me wrong - I find Sam's actions in that arc much more irresponsible than his behavior in Season 4).

The other reason I think it is bad writing is because I believe the writers do want us to see Sam and Dean as more or less equally heroic and equally flawed. While we'll occasionally get a reference to Sam's series of monumental screw-ups, for the most part, the show presents a narrative of "the Winchesters are heroes who do a lot of good things in the world, despite the occasional serious misstep." That parity is not, however, IMO being shown on screen, which indicates a writing issue to me.

By the way, I don't want to invalidate the perspectives of those of you who are seeing Dean being invalidated more often. The difference, to me, is that Dean may have to be taught a lesson on a more human, personal level (i.e, "It is OK that Mary isn't ready to be mommy right away"), when it comes to the big-picture  -- both in the supernatural sense, and in big, emotional arcs like the virtues of saving your loved ones at all costs, or a normal life vs. the hunting life -- he is almost always right. And while he may get a "Boo-hoo" from Bobby, Bobby also admits that he feels closer to Dean; though he continues by saying Sam is the better hunter at that moment, since he's talking about soulless Sam, that isn't really a plus in the Sam column. I'd say establishing that Dean is Bobby's favorite outweighs a dismissive moment. To me, the fact that so many of the more minor arcs have to do with Dean learning a lesson simply goes to show that the series is more invested in Dean's emotional state than Sam's, for the most part.

In a comedy, the lead is usually the one acting absurd and kooky, while the "straight man" sidekick is often the reasonable one -- until, in a lot of cases, the season finale, when the loveable kook gets the win. The fact that the show has the lead embarrassing him or herself way more consistently than the sidekick isn't a sign that the showrunners don't like the lead, it is a sign that the lead is getting more comic focus. Obviously, comparing this directly to SPN would require some exaggeration -- Dean may get more focus, IMO, but Sam is more than a sidekick -- but I think the analogy still serves.

[catrox14]

43 minutes ago, AwesomO4000 said:

I think Carver meant exactly to show that Sam was a hypocrite and undermine what I agree was Sam's right to be upset. Because nope: Carver couldn't just let Sam be justifiably angry and have the brothers move on. He had to have Sam make a speech that if Carver didn't know it would anger most of the fans, he's delusional, to garner sympathy for Dean's side (close up of Dean's upset face), have Dean proclaim "you would do the same," and then proceed to show explicitly that, indeed, Dean was correct about that...

I suppose it's possible that was Carver's intentions but to me the difference is that Sam was doing it save Dean from a fate that he thought would be worse than death vs Dean's actions saving Sam did not save him from a fate worse than death.  It stopped Sam from going to Heaven.  Maybe Carver thought he could move the guys from a horrible brodependency with Sam not looking for Dean and Dean having a vampire friend but the audience rejected that idea. So hewent back to

IMO, Carver was giving Sam a redemption arc for not looking for Dean in s8.  He either realized that was a terrible idea or the audience feedback made him rethink his attempts to end the brodependency.

 

34 minutes ago, RulerofallIsurvey said:

Sorry.  I interpreted "narrative" to mean the original scripts which the actors would use - but didn't think you'd necessarily seen one either.  That was kind of my point.  Doesn't the dialogue in the episode (from which the transcripts are culled) come from the script?  And I don't know - it's been awhile since my theater days - sometimes, I think, the scripts will contain director's notes, but most often that stuff comes from the actors themselves, I believe.  

I'm talking about how it's presented in show, via the text (dialogue), the story being told, not what is an an actor's script. Sorry, but I don't know how that got into the discussion. 

I'm saying that the dialogue that Dean said and still says at times, how he behaves towards others even now, is kind of assholish Tough Guy on occasion,  but because Jensen plays something not on the page that's why he can show Dean's vulnerability (and I don't mean just crying). His  worries, fears etc that don't show up in Dean's words.  Kind of like in s3 when he's talking a good game that he's not afraid to go to Hell with the demon Casey but his face is telling a completely different story. 

edited because I hit post too soon

Edited February 14, 2017 by catrox14

[Katy M]

30 minutes ago, companionenvy said:

And while he may get a "Boo-hoo" from Bobby

I never really got that as Bobby being dismissive of Dean's feelings as trying to smack some sense into him.  That moment was bigger than just Sam and Dean drama.  Sam was turning into a monster via the demon blood.  Dean would have said "stow your crap" Bobby said "Boo Hoo"

[catrox14]

Dean can be an asshole at times but he isn't socially dysfunctional.  Yes, drinks too much, and he was wrong to ever sell his soul for Sam in the first place, but if the show is going to continue to have other characters correct Dean on his emotions or psyche or tell him how he's supposed to deal with other human beings (as though he hasn't his ENTIRE life) without giving it any emotional depth or growth for Dean, then I might trade a couple of his supernatural wins for less "Dean needs to learn how to be a better human being" but never letting him really find that for himself.  

[AwesomO4000]

59 minutes ago, catrox14 said:

Maybe Carver thought he could move the guys from a horrible brodependency with Sam not looking for Dean and Dean having a vampire friend but the audience rejected that idea. So hewent back to

IMO, Carver was giving Sam a redemption arc for not looking for Dean in s8.  He either realized that was a terrible idea or the audience feedback made him rethink his attempts to end the brodependency.

I suppose this could be the case. But if Carver was trying to end the codependency why did he have Sam be so combative and dismissive about it and make him jealous of Benny - which would contradict Sam wanting to have a healthy non-dependent relationship? And not looking for Kevin had nothing to do with the codependency, either - that straight up just made Sam look horrible. Now if Sam had gone to look for Kevin - who he knew was not necessarily dead - while letting Dean "go," then you would've seen my full support that that was exactly what Carver was doing.

But the narrative was showing Sam just shrugging his shoulders at everything and declaring nope he didn't even look for Dean - or Kevin. He was just gonna kick back and go to farmer's markets. And if I overlook that somehow and think that Carver might've somehow seen all of this as positive - though "Citizen Fang" is a stretch - and he figured out later it was not well received / a bad idea / etc., I guess I just don't get why Carver couldn't just do a straight redemption arc  for Sam then. Why did he have to complicate things with that horrible speech of Sam's in The Purge and half a season of Sam being awful to Dean only to do a 180 at the end of the season? Why did he have Sam "redeeming" himself by saving Dean this time, but have that complicated by all of the ominous warnings of doom, make sure - as @companionenvy says - that it was a reckless decision, and then have it result in starting an apocalypse? (And have God himself point out how Sam broke the world by "saving" Dean.)

Don't get me wrong. I liked Sam's apology in season 11. That was good. It's a lot of the other stuff that I look sideways at, including making a second apocalypse all Sam's fault, making sure to kill off a bunch of innocent people in it for little to no reason, and then not even giving Sam much of a part in fixing it. It might be just me, but that seems like a rather crappy and back-handed "redemption arc."

Edited February 14, 2017 by AwesomO4000

[catrox14]

8 minutes ago, AwesomO4000 said:

(And have God himself point out how Sam broke the world by "saving" Dean.)

Eh, Guck didn't make a distinction that Dean had to be in the Empty, so he was fine with demon!Dean killing people and living in torment so him saying Sam  broke the world by saving Dean rings hollow as does most of what Guck said in that arc.  My point being that I think Guck is an asshole and full of crap. 

[AwesomO4000]

1 hour ago, catrox14 said:

My point being that I think Guck is an asshole and full of crap. 

Hee. Fair enough... But he's still God on the show, and so most likely reflecting the showrunner's (the show God's) views to some extent... unless we're supposed to listen to Metatron, who was the one sticking up for Sam in that scenario. And we know Metatron is a douche. (That's just the way I like him. I love to hate Metatron and enjoy when he's being douchy on my TV screen. ; ) )

[catrox14]

Just now, AwesomO4000 said:

Hee. Fair enough... But he's still God on the show, and so most likely reflecting the showrunner's (the show God's) views to some extent... unless we're supposed to listen to Metatron, who was the one sticking up for Sam in that scenario. And we know Metatron is a douche. (That's just the way I like him. I love to hate Metatron and enjoy when he's being douchy on my TV screen. ; ) )

I think to a large extent that yes, Metatron was speaking on behalf of Sam and humanity given all the other stuff he said about how good humanity was and that Guck was wrong. 

[RulerofallIsurvey]

4 hours ago, catrox14 said:

I'm talking about how it's presented in show, via the text (dialogue), the story being told, not what is an an actor's script. Sorry, but I don't know how that got into the discussion. 

Yes, but as I said, the text or dialogue in the show comes directly from the actors' scripts.  So I don't understand how you can completely disregard than when you talk about how an actor portrays his character.  

4 hours ago, catrox14 said:

I'm saying that the dialogue that Dean said and still says at times, how he behaves towards others even now, is kind of assholish Tough Guy on occasion,  but because Jensen plays something not on the page that's why he can show Dean's vulnerability (and I don't mean just crying). His  worries, fears etc that don't show up in Dean's words.  Kind of like in s3 when he's talking a good game that he's not afraid to go to Hell with the demon Casey but his face is telling a completely different story. 

And that is directly related to how the actor interprets what is in his script and how he decides to portray his character.  Now maybe the one actor is better at portraying vulnerability - at least in a way that appeals to some people versus another.  Or one actor's persona is more appealing than another, but I disagree that one character's emotions are written into the narrative and another's are not.  ["Sam's emotions are written into the narrative even if his motivations (particularly s8) are not as clear as they could be. It's written that Sam is angry, resentful, vengeful and his reactions to things reflect that within the actual narrative and the audience is expected to be angry, resentful or sad along with Sam."]  Both actors get the same script.  It largely depends on how the individual actors interpret it and portray it, imo.  But it's not entirely due to the narrative itself.   And I think there have been plenty of times when Dean's emotions were 'written into the narrative' and his words/dialogue reflected that.

[catrox14]

21 minutes ago, RulerofallIsurvey said:

Yes, but as I said, the text or dialogue in the show comes directly from the actors' scripts.  So I don't understand how you can completely disregard than when you talk about how an actor portrays his character.  

When did I say it was being completely disregarded? I never said nor implied that.

I didn't say it was NEVER written into Dean's narrative either. I'm saying that it was not particularly a part of Dean's story that his emotions were written as much into the storytelling as Sam's were from the outset of the series. 

I'm not trying to convince anyone to see it my way.  Just saying how it seems to me.  We can agree to disagree.

Edited February 15, 2017 by catrox14

[RulerofallIsurvey]

4 minutes ago, catrox14 said:

When did I say it was being completely disregarded? I never said nor implied that.

Sorry then I misunderstood.  

Fyi, when someone says something like, "I don't know how that got into the discussion " to me that implies a certain amount of disregard. ymmv.

[catrox14]

1 minute ago, RulerofallIsurvey said:

Fyi, when someone says something like, "I don't know how that got into the discussion " to me that implies a certain amount of disregard. ymmv.

Oh I guess I misunderstood you as well. I thought you were saying that I was saying that Jensen disregards scripts in his acting which is not what I was saying. I didn't think your comment was in reference to mine.

I think one can interpret dialogue, story arcs, episodes etc via what is shown on screen and from the dialogue via TRANSCRIPTS,  cinematography, etc without knowing what an actors actual sides consist of, which obviously neither of us know. 

[SueB]

Some data:
- The show only continues if both Jared and Jensen are on the show. (said EVERYONE EVER who actually makes these decisions)
- The boys have been careful to negotiate equivalent contracts. Jensen does get extra for directing gigs.
- Jared is #1 on call sheet, Jensen is #2 ... that hasn't changed nor will ever... and it hardly matters.  They are the focus of the show.  
 

While Mileage CLEARLY varies about who has better stories, who gets treated worse, yada yada... the data are clear -- J2 are both show leads.  It's how all the press releases read, the DVDs, etc... 

Warner Brothers Press Release:

Quote

SUPERNATURAL: SEASON 12

Original Broadcast Date: September 13, 2005

The thrilling and terrifying journey of the Winchester brothers continues as Supernatural enters its twelfth season. Sam and Dean have spent their lives on the road, battling every kind of supernatural threat. Over the years, and after countless bloody adventures, they have faced everything from the yellow-eyed demon that killed their mother to vampires, ghosts, shapeshifters, angels and fallen gods. In the show's eleventh season, the Winchesters found themselves battling an apocalyptic force: the Darkness. Now, rallying help from their allies—both human and supernatural—Sam and Dean are about to go toe-to-toe with the most destructive enemy they've ever seen. The question is, will they win? And at what price?

Genre: Action/AdventureDramaSci-Fi/Fantasy

[Wayward Son]

19 hours ago, Aeryn13 said:

What did Supernatural do? Dean comes back right away and Sam acts kinda... "um...hm...just when my going was good". Dean was understandably thrown and hurt by the basic statement "no, I did nothing, I didn`t even look under one stone". Tensions arise and it all culminates with Sam declaring that he has enough of the attitude, that he explained himself right away and Dean better get over it or else. I would have had no real problem with the concept of Sam not looking for Dean if the aftermath had played out better. The Vampire Diaries did a similar story with one brother even knowingly giving up on searching for his brother when it was unclear if they were dead or alive. And he caught mucho flack from other characters for it. He explained that he had searched far and wide but simply lost hope. It all culminated in a wonderful brother reunion where the brother who had seemingly moved on with his life just said "I tried but I`m lost". THAT, I found poignant and relatable. And those brothers have a contentious relationship at best.

It was like, wow, what should Dean apologize for here first? Being alive? Runining Sam`s newfound life by not being dead? Having actually found someone who helped him to be alive? Should he have waited for Sam`s help in Purgatory? Evidently not because none was forthcoming.

My problem was the attitude. No Sam, you DIDN`T explain yourself. Everyone would be hurt if they came back and heard "well, I did nothing and moved on, what`s your fucking problem with that?" Dean didn`t get to see the brightly lit flashbacks. Not that I found those particularly enlightening for the current attitude either.

 

16 hours ago, RulerofallIsurvey said:

 

pretty much what @Wayward Son said here?:

 

As @RulerofallIsurvey highlights, after my examination of Sam's motives I did state that I feel the writers let the character of Sam (and the audience) down by never providing him with an opportunity to explain himself. In my opinion, a large portion of the brotherly conflict in season eight was a failure for them to truly communicate with one another. When Dean first returned from purgatory I think Sam was portrayed as having a range of emotions. There was the expected happiness "You're frigging alive", but it was somewhat muted by the accompanying feeling of confusion and guilt for letting Dean down he speaks of in Sacrifice. I can understand where Dean was coming from. He was hurt by what he perceived as Sam's failure to look for him and lashed out. However, Dean didn't do himself any favours. Instead of asking Sam why, he did what he did, he instantly went on the offence and began to berate him for the choices he made. Sam responded to this hostility by getting defensive and displaying hostility of his own. As far as I am concerned both brothers behaved wrongly influenced by the strong emotions they felt. 

This may have been acceptable had the writers chosen to conclude the arc with a discussion between the brothers where they both got to openly discuss where they were coming from. I think if Sam had been allowed to explain to Dean he thought he was dead, that it broke him and he just didn't know what to do and ran away from his problems (as I illustrated in my earlier post), then Dean would have understood and even felt sympathy for Sam's plight. He knows what it is like to feel like you've lost your brother and can't do anything to help.  Likewise, Sam would have understood that the reason Dean behaved so negatively towards him in season eight was due to the fact Dean was lashing out as a result of his hurt at being 'abandoned'. A scene like that could have been a powerful and moving one where both brothers got to say their piece before moving on.

However, what do we get instead? We get a scene where Sam apologies for a list of sins Dean had pointed out earlier in the episode. Sam is shown to be the bad guy in this and he is still made to feel guilty for actions he took years before hand. Actions that he had (supposedly) earned Dean's forgiveness for. That is why I have always said the narrative of seasons eight (and nine which ends on a similar note with the "I lied" scene) were firmly on Dean's side, while leaving the character of Sam to receive a firm backlash from the fans. 

7 hours ago, SueB said:

Some data:
- The show only continues if both Jared and Jensen are on the show. (said EVERYONE EVER who actually makes these decisions)
- The boys have been careful to negotiate equivalent contracts. Jensen does get extra for directing gigs.
- Jared is #1 on call sheet, Jensen is #2 ... that hasn't changed nor will ever... and it hardly matters.  They are the focus of the show.  
 

While Mileage CLEARLY varies about who has better stories, who gets treated worse, yada yada... the data are clear -- J2 are both show leads.  It's how all the press releases read, the DVDs, etc... 

Warner Brothers Press Release:

 

16 hours ago, catrox14 said:

ETA:  Sam was the main character in the beginning of the show.  I'm not entirely sure he's not still the main character.  IMO everyone was there to serve Sam's story, which is NOT a complaint or criticism. It's just the story Kripke wanted to tell.  Dean was there to help tell Sam's story.   So to that end I think the writers wrote Sam's emotions, reasons, actions, reactions into the storyline EVEN if in a mysterious and not well thought out manner like in s4.

I think Jensen played Dean in a way that compelled the writers to look beyond the stereotype that was set out for Dean in the pilot

In my opinion Sam and Dean have both been the main characters of Supernatural since the very beginning. As @SueB highlights it has always been presented that way in press releases, DVDs etc. I do think initially the two were intended to serve different narrative purposes. Sam was to be the central figure of the mythology. In seasons one and two he was the psychic kid surrounding by the mystery of what exactly did the Yellow Eyed Demon want for him? In season four he is the one drinking the demon blood and at the largest risk of causing the apocalypse through his actions. Dean on the other hand was to be the humanity of the show. It was often through his lens that we got to see things occur. In my opinion, this is why it took ten seasons before Dean was shown to be less than a regular human for longer than an episode. 

 

14 hours ago, AwesomO4000 said:

I suppose this could be the case. But if Carver was trying to end the codependency why did he have Sam be so combative and dismissive about it and make him jealous of Benny - which would contradict Sam wanting to have a healthy non-dependent relationship?

I think a part of the blame for Sam's attitude towards Benny lies with Dean. In the beginning, it would have been natural for Sam to have been suspicious of Benny especially after his experience with Ruby who had once presented herself as a friend of his. Furthermore, on several occasions Dean threw Benny in Sam's face. He compared the two while pointing out how much better than him Benny was. Is it really surprising that Sam would feel hostility towards Benny in those circumstances? I think a lot of people would grow to resent someone if they constantly had to hear about how much better than them this person is.

Edited February 15, 2017 by Wayward Son

[RulerofallIsurvey]

10 hours ago, catrox14 said:

Oh I guess I misunderstood you as well. I thought you were saying that I was saying that Jensen disregards scripts in his acting which is not what I was saying. I didn't think your comment was in reference to mine.

Oh, no that's not what I meant at all!  :)  Sorry we misunderstood each other.  

fwiw - I agree that Jensen probably puts more into the character than what is in the script. I think both of them do.

[Meredith Quill]

A friendly reminder:

This is not a debate thread. We expect everyone to respect each others opinions; there are no 'right' or 'wrong' opinions here, only differing ones. Respecting opinions includes stating yours without being overly caustic, whether it be a positive or negative one, because as the laws of physics dictate; every action has an equal and opposite reaction.

 

Thank you.

[Aeryn13]

Quote

However, what do we get instead? We get a scene where Sam apologies for a list of sins Dean had pointed out earlier in the episode. Sam is shown to be the bad guy in this and he is still made to feel guilty for actions he took years before hand. Actions that he had (supposedly) earned Dean's forgiveness for. That is why I have always said the narrative of seasons eight (and nine which ends on a similar note with the "I lied" scene) were firmly on Dean's side, while leaving the character of Sam to receive a firm backlash from the fans. 

I thought that church scene in the Season 8 Finale once more put the onus of wrong firmly on Dean. The dialogue was atrocious.

"What happens next time you decide I can`t be trusted again."  - Sounds like the next time Dean just gets delusional and victimizes Sam by not trusting him, not due any actions Sam may or may not take.

"Turn to another vampire, another angel."  - So when Dean gets said delusions, he commits the horrible offense of possibly seeking out other friends? What a bastard.

It ends with Dean, who has been firmly crawling back and put in his position as servant nanny for the back half of Season 8, to make a real pathetic display of "noone comes before you". That offended me on pretty much every level. And the Season 9 Opener just quadrupled that.   

Quote

 do think initially the two were intended to serve different narrative purposes. Sam was to be the central figure of the mythology. 

 To me that always did make him the main character. I never thought the POV or the one who tells the story of someone else is of equal importance. That is pretty much a sidekick function to me. And I always think the mytharc is way more important than emo stuff.

I think that is also while it appears that Sam has bigger fuck-ups then Dean. Or that Dean`s don`t have such big consequences. The sidekick`s actions are simply of limited importance. 

Ironically, Carver, as limited as I found him as a writer/showrunner (and as much as I hated the second half of Season 8) was probably the one who made the biggest step in giving Dean an actual arc as a main character. I`d count Season 4 and 5 under Kripke but since he took it all back and basically ,made it a red herring in the worst episode known to me, I can`t. Gamble never even bothered. And Dabb seems too enamored with side character and cold-fish-Mary.

 That does leave Carver. And while the Mark of Cain storyline certainly wasn`t well executed and left a LOT of potential on the floor, I still treasure it for at least giving me a story. 

[companionenvy]

1 hour ago, Aeryn13 said:

 To me that always did make him the main character. I never thought the POV or the one who tells the story of someone else is of equal importance. That is pretty much a sidekick function to me. And I always think the mytharc is way more important than emo stuff.

I think that is also while it appears that Sam has bigger fuck-ups then Dean. Or that Dean`s don`t have such big consequences. The sidekick`s actions are simply of limited importance. 

Depends on the narrative, IMO. Yeah, if we're talking The Great Gatsby, Nick Carraway is the guy who tells Gatsby's story. While we are getting things from his perspective, the novel clearly isn't about him. But in most novels, the POV character is also the main character, even if another character is the precipitating force behind the action - i.e, if a novel about a critically ill child is told from the POV of the child's mother, and traces her thoughts, reactions, etc during the process, she is the main character.

In SPN, I do think that the brothers are co-leads - neither Sam nor Dean is the other's sidekick -- but I do think that Dean gets somewhat greater focus and attention. Essentially, when the show was conceived, it sounds to me like the idea was always that Jensen and Jared were co-stars, rather than star and supporting actor, but that the Sam role was supposed to be somewhat bigger. To put it in award show terms, both of J2 would have been clearly entered in the Lead Actor category, but - assuming equal acting talent -- if one of them was going to actually get the nomination/award, it would have been Jared, because he had the meatier role. I think that order got reversed fairly quickly. If this were a prestige show getting awards attention, Misha and Mark get supporting actor nods, Jensen and Jared both get lead actor nominations, and Jensen consistently wins the Emmy.

It also seems significant to me that even the Azazel arc, which was presumably at least conceived when the show was supposed to be more Sam-centric, ends with Dean killing Azazel. If this were a straight hero/sidekick dynamic, that doesn't happen. Conversely, if this were a straight hero/sidekick dynamic with Dean as sole hero, season 5 doesn't end with Sam defeating Lucifer. Although I must say -- Sam throwing himself into the pit now happened over six seasons ago. What is the biggest win or kill he has gotten since then? His biggest plotline was the trials plot, which ended in him NOT closing the gates of hell. 

[Myrelle]

4 hours ago, Aeryn13 said:

I thought that church scene in the Season 8 Finale once more put the onus of wrong firmly on Dean. The dialogue was atrocious.

"What happens next time you decide I can`t be trusted again."  - Sounds like the next time Dean just gets delusional and victimizes Sam by not trusting him, not due any actions Sam may or may not take.

"Turn to another vampire, another angel."  - So when Dean gets said delusions, he commits the horrible offense of possibly seeking out other friends? What a bastard.

It ends with Dean, who has been firmly crawling back and put in his position as servant nanny for the back half of Season 8, to make a real pathetic display of "noone comes before you". That offended me on pretty much every level. And the Season 9 Opener just quadrupled that.

For the longest time, S8 was my least favorite season because of stuff like this and certain scenes from episodes like Southern Comfort and Torn and Frayed where Dean was basically and yet again forced to admit the error of his ways within the confines of the much vaunted(by some) brotherly/familial bond- the "error" this time being that of Sammy comes first before everyone else in his life. No matter what anyone else had ever done for Dean, this had to be spoken of by Dean, himself. This seemed to me to be a commandment given to the writers in the second half of S8, with the church dialogue in Sacrifice being their main aim and answer to the brothers' distance and anger with each other over the course of the first part of the season. The second part of S8 was Sam's supposed redemption arc for never looking for Kevin, IMO-IOW, for running away from the hunter life(and in doing so, shirking his responsibility to protect and defend those who cannot defend themselves from the evil within the supernatural world) in favor of his dream of a normal life-a perfectly reasonable dream-for anyone other than the Winchesters, that is. 

Dean, for his part, and from the writers' perspective IMO, was supposed to understand this, but couldn't when he first returned from Purgatory because he'd been in total and complete battle-mode for the entire year that he'd been gone and was afflicted with PTSD from that time with Benny(a monster!) having become a true brother-in-arms to him there. And for some reason Sam was never able to understand this even though, up to this point in the series, it was Sam had always been the one to champion the writers' previous opinion that monsters did not have to be inherently evil and that they could fight back against the evil that could and would always threaten to consume them if they let their guard down. Benny even embodied this as a vampire like Lenore. And yet, when Sam likened Benny to another "monster", it was to his monster friend Amy whom, yes, Dean had killed, but who was not the truer parallel for Benny, at the time, as Lenore was. And yet I can remember many in the fandom screaming that it was Dean who was the hypocrite in this scenario, not Sam. And what did Dean do? He backed down w/o an argument. Again. Because Sam threatened to leave. Again(Southern Comfort-Yuck.). His anger was still there, IMO-just not allowed out. Once again. Stuffed into that little lead box of his again, and only allowed to re-surface somewhat at the end of Citizen Fang- andwith good reason, IMO-only this time he tried to be clever instead confrontational, looking only to save his brother AND-the FRIEND(monster or not) who'd become like a brother to him in Purgatory. And the Text of Doom became the new worst thing for some in the fandom that Dean had ever done to Sam in his life. 

It should be noted that it was never pointed out by the writers in either S8 or S9, via any dialogue at all, that Sam did anything wrong where it pertained to that hunt especially. Sam did apologize for never trying to look for Dean in S10, but that hunt was never mentioned again as shedding a negative light on any of Sam's actions in it-not in any way, again dialogue-wise, that I can recall, anyway. And yet, Dean was still able to garnish sympathy from no few in the viewing audience anyway. I can only chalk that up to the acting and chemistry of both JA and Ty Olssen in their respective roles within that storyline, because IMO, the actual dialogues within the writing, did everything they could to sway us to Sam's line of thinking(and even though we were shown in Blood Brother that Benny was no longer an evil monster). And when he died to rescue Sam from Purgatory? Well, that was the most grudging "thanks" that I've ever seen a fictional character deliver for another who'd sacrificed his life in the way that Benny had. And then we got that Sacrifice speech. Whoopee. And that's why Sacrifice, and the second half of S8 remains tied with 5.22 the last part of S5 for my least favorite episode/seasons of this show. They were mirrors of each other, IMO, where it pertained to the writing, as the "tell" was completely mismatched with the "show" by the end of both seasons.

Except for possibly one thing, and this I only saw in hindsight-neither brother was truly written OOC, IMO. And that's my unpopular opinion here. Up to that point in the story, and again IMO, Dean, no matter what, and even to his own detriment, would always wind up putting Sam before anyone/everyone else in his life, while Sam would always expect that of Dean, even becoming disenchanted when it appeared that Dean was moving away from that line of thinking and even while Sam said out of one side of his mouth that he wanted Dean to have his own life-and this was because Sam, on some level, had still never given up on wanting his own life. That he confused it with wanting that life to be a "normal" one , does not and cannot disqualify the fact that he still wanted to be first, before everyone and/or anyone else, in Dean's life, IMO. That has been another running characteristic of Sam's from early on in the series, IMO. When everything is fine/good in his life, Sam has wanted nothing more than for Dean to have his own life, too; but when Sam needs Dean, Dean should drop whoever and/or whatever he's doing and come running. And this was a large part of Sam's contribution to the dysfunctional CO-dependency of the relationship, IMO.

I think in some ways and since S9, that both Carver and Dabb have been trying to move away from that particular aspect of the dysfunction, though. At least where it concerns the brothers' feelings and perceptions of the hunt and what each wants from it going forward and as regards any future each of them might have or want. And that's why there have been fewer apologies on both sides-which I'm totally all for, btw-and more "understanding" on both sides.

At this point, you either like each brother, just as they are and have predominantly been, or you don't. And I'm finding that that's come to work for me as long as Dean can retain this newfound confidence of his and as long as Sam can refrain from any disdain/dislike he might have for those that Dean might choose to love, respect, and/or depend on besides Sam.

There has never been any spoke resolution to this, but the feeling is there this season-at least for me. And I like it.

Edited February 15, 2017 by Myrelle

[Casseiopeia]

I interpreted Sacrifice a little different.  In the church Dean was saying to Sam "I love you above all others" and what Sam needed was Dean to say "I trust you above all others".  Love and trust are two completely different things.  Sam never questions Dean's love but he does want/need Dean's trust.  Which is why he said "all the times I let you down".  In Sam's mind that is why Dean turns to "another angel...a vampire" because he has let Dean down.  What he wants more than anything is to be the "brother" that Dean can turn to above all others.

Anyway sorry for intruding on the conversation which I find refreshingly civil.  It was just my interpretation.

[Wayward Son]

2 hours ago, companionenvy said:

Depends on the narrative, IMO. Yeah, if we're talking The Great Gatsby, Nick Carraway is the guy who tells Gatsby's story. While we are getting things from his perspective, the novel clearly isn't about him. But in most novels, the POV character is also the main character, even if another character is the precipitating force behind the action - i.e, if a novel about a critically ill child is told from the POV of the child's mother, and traces her thoughts, reactions, etc during the process, she is the main character.

In SPN, I do think that the brothers are co-leads - neither Sam nor Dean is the other's sidekick -- but I do think that Dean gets somewhat greater focus and attention. Essentially, when the show was conceived, it sounds to me like the idea was always that Jensen and Jared were co-stars, rather than star and supporting actor, but that the Sam role was supposed to be somewhat bigger. To put it in award show terms, both of J2 would have been clearly entered in the Lead Actor category, but - assuming equal acting talent -- if one of them was going to actually get the nomination/award, it would have been Jared, because he had the meatier role. I think that order got reversed fairly quickly. If this were a prestige show getting awards attention, Misha and Mark get supporting actor nods, Jensen and Jared both get lead actor nominations, and Jensen consistently wins the Emmy.

It also seems significant to me that even the Azazel arc, which was presumably at least conceived when the show was supposed to be more Sam-centric, ends with Dean killing Azazel. If this were a straight hero/sidekick dynamic, that doesn't happen. Conversely, if this were a straight hero/sidekick dynamic with Dean as sole hero, season 5 doesn't end with Sam defeating Lucifer. Although I must say -- Sam throwing himself into the pit now happened over six seasons ago. What is the biggest win or kill he has gotten since then? His biggest plotline was the trials plot, which ended in him NOT closing the gates of hell. 

Yep I pretty much see it the same way. Similar enough to what you said I would rank the cast hiearchy as follows. 

The Stars ~ Jensen and Jared are the only two who fit in this category and I can't imagine that ever changing. It is these two the show relies upon and if either chooses to leave then that is Supernatural over for good. 

The Series Regulars ~ At the moment Misha and Mark are the only two who belong in this category. In the past Katie Cassidy and Lauren Cohan were also billed as such. I'd argue that Jim Beaver / Bobby belonged to this category at one point even if he was never billed as such. This ranking is for long term side characters who are allowed a more vast character development than the average recurring character. They are also occasionally given storylines of their own that are relatively independent of the brothers. However, they are ultimately expandable and the show can survive without them.

Recurring Characters ~ These are characters such as Rowena, Kevin, Azazel, Lilith who have appeared on the show more than once throughout the year. However, they're often background characters and purely there to aid the brothers and/or series regulars storyline.

Guest ~ Characters who have only appeared on the show once!

Edited February 15, 2017 by Wayward Son

[catrox14]

I could never understand what Sam was expecting Dean to say in that moment. Was Sam expecting Dean to make a vow to Sam, that he would trust him forever no questions asked? I mean that seems like an unrealistic promise for Dean to make in the heat of the moment.  It was especially strange with Dean has placed his trust in Sam in the past with varying degrees of disappointment and fulfillment.  IMO, if the scene was intended to communicate that Sam was filled with self-loathing and WISHED he could be a more trustworthy brother to Dean, I don't think the writing nor Jared's performance communicated that.

[Aeryn13]

Quote

I interpreted Sacrifice a little different.  In the church Dean was saying to Sam "I love you above all others" and what Sam needed was Dean to say "I trust you above all others".  Love and trust are two completely different things.  Sam never questions Dean's love but he does want/need Dean's trust. 

I would still highly dislike that scene (and that Finale) regardless. Here we have Sam bemoaning that he wants to be the one Dean turns to all the time and he feels bad about Dean`s earlier actions of turning to others. Yet if Dean had turned to Sam (so to speak) in Purgatory, he would still be there or dead. No help was forthcoming from that front. So it wasn`t mean or distrsutful of him that he turned to Benny. And yet I thought that dialogue painted him in the wrong.

And the episode had one of those constructs I really hate, the "Dean is so obviously superflouus in this story, we can`t hide it". Sam is doing the trials. Narratively, he needs to be left alone with Crowley to have those scenes so Dean gets shipped off for the side plot Castiel has to do nothing but wait around. When Castiel needs to further his plot alone, Dean gets shipped back right to Sam. Like semi-juggling a hot potato. It was the same mid-Season 10 with the Gadreel story. It was kinda bad in the psykids plot in those centric episodes but IMO it was worse during the trials and some of the Gadreel stuff. 

Granted, if I trimmed everything that doesn`t need to be in the story to still essentially tell it, entire Season 6 and 7 would play out without the Winchesters. Season 8 would be sans Dean. And if I`m honest, he would not be rescued from hell so Season 4 and 5 without him, too. Season 1 and 2, I can squint and make a case for his presence to keep the narrative intact. Not sure but possibly. And Season 12 so far would be without both again.

Quote

The Stars ~ Jensen and Jared are the only two who fit in this category and I can't imagine that ever changing. It is these two the show relies upon and if either chooses to leave then that is Supernatural over for good. 

For me there was always a difference between the show and the story. Can I tell the basic story of SAm overcoming Lucifer without Dean? Yes. Could I easily make almost the exact same Season 5 Finale without Dean there? Easily. Could someone else be the housemaid during the trials? Of course. 

It`s quite another thing if the show itself would attract viewers without one character present. 

Edited February 15, 2017 by Aeryn13

[Myrelle]

There have been times when neither one of them should have trusted the other above all others, IMO. That might be an unpopular opinion too. So if it wasn't said, maybe that thought or idea should have been conveyed and discussed more(especially in S8 and 9) using something other than OTT anger or words expressed while under a supernaturally-induced agent or spell. But we never got that. At least they tried to have Dean express his side of things in the S5 premiere. Not a great reconciliation scene either. Not by any stretch of the imagination, but at least we got some Dean POV that included why he'd been hurt and was angry. 

But thinking back on it more, Fallen Idols was likely another one of those "attempts" and that's the one that put the nail in the coffin of the brother bond for me. So maybe it's actually better that they've given up on trying. Maybe the speech in Sacrifice was another attempt, but it sure did sound an awful lot like the one in Fallen Idols to me. And I remember a ton of people feeling that way about the church speech, too.

Edited February 15, 2017 by Myrelle

[Wayward Son]

39 minutes ago, Casseiopeia said:

I interpreted Sacrifice a little different.  In the church Dean was saying to Sam "I love you above all others" and what Sam needed was Dean to say "I trust you above all others".  Love and trust are two completely different things.  Sam never questions Dean's love but he does want/need Dean's trust.  Which is why he said "all the times I let you down".  In Sam's mind that is why Dean turns to "another angel...a vampire" because he has let Dean down.  What he wants more than anything is to be the "brother" that Dean can turn to above all others.

Anyway sorry for intruding on the conversation which I find refreshingly civil.  It was just my interpretation.

That is also my interpretation Casseioepia :)

[Diane]

40 minutes ago, Casseiopeia said:

I interpreted Sacrifice a little different.  In the church Dean was saying to Sam "I love you above all others" and what Sam needed was Dean to say "I trust you above all others".  Love and trust are two completely different things.  Sam never questions Dean's love but he does want/need Dean's trust.  Which is why he said "all the times I let you down".  In Sam's mind that is why Dean turns to "another angel...a vampire" because he has let Dean down.  What he wants more than anything is to be the "brother" that Dean can turn to above all others.

Anyway sorry for intruding on the conversation which I find refreshingly civil.  It was just my interpretation.

I agree also.

[Myrelle]

1 minute ago, Diane said:

What he wants more than anything is to be the "brother" that Dean can turn to above all others.

Well, I'm not going to blame Dean for his lack of trust concerning Sam at that time; and if I'm being completely honest, even if it's still there a little bit. He's only human.

[Diane]

3 minutes ago, Myrelle said:

Well, I'm not going to blame Dean for his lack of trust concerning Sam at that time; and if I'm being completely honest, even if it's still there a little bit. He's only human.

I don't blame him either, I am agreeing in that I think Sam wants and needs Dean to trust him and for him to be the one Dean can always count on.  They are both only human, I see both sides.  I am also like both equally, so I am not slanted one way or the other.

[Myrelle]

I think that in some instances, Sam should know better than to trust Dean also. IMO, their greater strength is in knowing each other better than in simply trusting the other one blindly-although when push comes to shove as we saw in this week's episode-Dean will and can still trust Sam blindly-at least on the hunt.

[ILoveReading]

1 hour ago, Casseiopeia said:

I interpreted Sacrifice a little different.  In the church Dean was saying to Sam "I love you above all others" and what Sam needed was Dean to say "I trust you above all others".  Love and trust are two completely different things.  Sam never questions Dean's love but he does want/need Dean's trust.  Which is why he said "all the times I let you down".  In Sam's mind that is why Dean turns to "another angel...a vampire" because he has let Dean down.  What he wants more than anything is to be the "brother" that Dean can turn to above all others.

Anyway sorry for intruding on the conversation which I find refreshingly civil.  It was just my interpretation.

The problem here is that once again the burden is still on Dean.  Trust is a two way street and if Sam wants Dean to trust him, he needs to demonstrate that he can be trusted.  In s4, Sam lied to Dean the minute Dean showed up on his door step and he also prioritized Ruby above Dean.  He left Dean alone his first night back.  Sam continued to lie and go behind Dean's back.  Dean gave Ruby more than enough chances to its not like Dean's mind was closed.  He even told Sam at one point, keep your secrets just stop lying. 

So at the point where Dean trusted an angel, Sam had more than earned Dean's lack of trust. 

Dean didn't trust Benny out of spite for Sam.  He trusted Benny because Benny earned his trust.   When Benny first came to Dean he was upfront about what he wanted. He didn't pretend to be Dean's friend.  He knew the way out and he wanted Dean to take him with him.  Over that year, what started as a business arrangement grew into a friendship.  We saw what cemented Dean's trust him him.  It was because Benny saved Cas.  It was made clear Benny thought Cas was a liability and it would have been easy for Benny to hesitate a 2nd or two and let Cas get killed but he didn't. 

The entire time while that relationship was forming, Dean believed that Sam was looking for him topside.  It's hard to feel sympathy for Sam over feeling like he let Dean down when he didn't even try.  It's like student complaining they a teacher failed him and ruined his GPA, and then finding out the student didn't go to class or do any of the work. 

If Dean killed Benny the minute they met because he was waiting for Sam, he'd still be in purgatory.

Just changing the order of the pronouns' would have changed the entire context of that speech.   "What happens the next time I give you reason not to trust me."  That IMO is Sam taking responsibility for losing Dean's trust.  "What happens the next time you decide I can't be trusted" comes across as Dean being the problem for him not trusting Sam, not Sam's actions.

Even now, Sam is still breaking promises and doing things behind Dean's back.  He broke his promise to wait for Dean, and allowed himself to be easily goaded into trusting Rowena, and he went behind Dean's back and contacted the Brisitsh Men of Letters.  Plus, after getting mad at Dean for saving him against his will, he went and did the same thing with the book of the Damned.

So how exactly is Sam defining trust-  Is it unconditional acceptance that just because Sam thinks its a good idea Dean is supposed to agree with no questions asked? 

Edited February 15, 2017 by ILoveReading

[auntvi]

36 minutes ago, ILoveReading said:

So how exactly is Sam defining trust-  Is it unconditional acceptance that just because Sam thinks its a good idea Dean is supposed to agree with no questions asked? 

No, but at some point things that happened years ago need to be forgiven, if not forgotten. You (the general you) have to give a little to get a little, trust now and he is more likely to be trustworthy in the future.  Isn't that how kids learn?

[ILoveReading]

Just now, auntvi said:

No, but at some point things that happened years ago need to be forgiven, if not forgotten. You (the general you) have to give a little to get a little, trust now and he is more likely to be trustworthy in the future.  Isn't that how kids learn?

When you're forced to bury things, because your family tells you to suck it up or drop it and you never really get a chance to come to terms with it, it can fester and grow worse.  If Dean is still harboring some resentment for things, I don't blame him because he was never really given a chance to process or deal with alot of mistreatment.  He's always the one who is told to let it go because there are more important things to deal with, while everyone else gets hold onto their anger and resentment.

[Casseiopeia]

Quote

Trust is a two way street.  If Sam wants Dean to trust him, he needs to prove he can be trusted.

Exactly.  That was the point of Sacrifice.  Sam knew how many times he let Dean down, the latest being not looking for him.  That was why Sam would have died to prove that Dean could trust him to do the job. 

[AwesomO4000]

2 hours ago, Myrelle said:

I can only chalk that up to the acting and chemistry of both JA and Ty Olssen in their respective roles within that storyline, because IMO, the actual dialogues within the writing, did everything they could to sway us to Sam's line of thinking(and even though we were shown in Blood Brother that Benny was no longer an evil monster).

I respectfully disagree, because I think there was an easy way for the writers to show that we were supposed to agree with Sam's line of thinking: not try to make Benny the vampire with a heart of gold who contradicted all previous canon about monsters that the show ever had. The writers could even have made him somewhat grayer - like Lenore - because I would've understood Dean still feeling a bond with Benny even if he was more gray.* But nope, Benny had to be the nicest vampire ever, and they even gave him a hero's arc since he sacrificed himself willingly for Sam rather than Dean having to force him or bribe him to do it... which again would've been an easy way for the writers to sway us to Sam's way of thinking. So I disagree. For me, the tone was fairly pro-Benny/Dean throughout or at least compared to how they painted Sam it was. Benny wasn't gray enough for me to think otherwise.

* And ironically for me, that would've made a much more compelling story arc for Dean - if Dean was now so affected by purgatory that he had a "monster" friend, was he also so affected that he might be willing to overlook some iffy behavior because he and Benny had been brothers in arms for so long? And if so, could Dean come back to being himself and questioning it now that he was back in the real world? For me that would've been fascinating.

1 hour ago, Myrelle said:

When everything is fine/good in his life, Sam has wanted nothing more than for Dean to have his own life, too; but when Sam needs Dean, Dean should drop whoever and/or whatever he's doing and come running. And this was a large part of Sam's contribution to the once dysfunctional CO-dependency of the relationship, IMO.

But hasn't Dean sort of wanted the same thing sometimes? When they were working together to find John, Dean entirely hoped and expected that Sam would continue on hunting and forget going back to his friends and college when they were done. I'm not sure why Sam expecting Dean to come help him is all that unreasonable myself. If Dean is going to pull the family card - which he has reason to pull - then Sam has that same right, in my opinion.

When Dean was in trouble because of the deal, Sam did all that he could including trying to sacrifice himself instead to try to help him. It didn't work but that was hardly Sam's fault. I'm not sure why Sam shouldn't or wouldn't expect that Dean would do the same for him.

1 hour ago, Myrelle said:

...and as long as Sam can refrain from any disdain/dislike he might have for those that Dean might choose to love, respect, and/or depend on besides Sam.

But when, besides Benny, had that ever happened before? (Which is why I think that Sam's reaction to Benny was not really in character.) Sam is perfectly fine with Castiel, a being that Sam knows that if there was ever a choice between him (Sam) and Dean, Castiel would drop Sam in a hot minute - and actually has done so (and it wasn't even a life or death situation.) Yet even knowing that, Sam fully accepts Castiel in Dean's - and his - life.

I agree with @Casseiopeia that Sam was looking for Dean to tell him that he could trust him. My unpopular opinion is that I don't think that it was all that unreasonable of a request. In my opinion, Dean should give Sam first shot at being the one he trusts over the vampire he's known for a year and the angel who betrayed Dean - and Sam - much more recently than Sam had* and was currently, rather than acting trustworthy, instead acting squirrelly as hell and I think recently beat Dean up if I'm remembering correctly (I don't rewatch season 8).

* Unless you count "Citizen Fang" - and good gravy do I HATE that episode so much, because the writers had Sam act completely ridiculous in that episode for the sake of teh drama! But we'll cancel it out with the text message which the writers shouldn't have put Dean in the position of sending either. That entire episode was soap opera-y and cringe-worthy manipulation-wise, imo.

58 minutes ago, catrox14 said:

Was Sam expecting Dean to make a vow to Sam, that he would trust him forever no questions asked? I mean that seems like an unrealistic promise for Dean to make in the heat of the moment.  It was especially strange with Dean has placed his trust in Sam in the past with varying degrees of disappointment and fulfillment. 

But hasn't that been the case with almost everyone in Dean's life? Hasn't almost everyone let Dean down in some way or another. I suppose you could argue Benny - and in my opinion it was somewhat annoying of the show to go there, myself, entirely contradicting all previous canon, but okay - but Sam is family. For me, Sam was asking to be considered first when it came to trust, and as I said above, considering the other choices, I don't think it was all that unreasonable of a request. Obviously miles vary.

[Myrelle]

Quote

No, but at some point things that happened years ago need to be forgiven, if not forgotten. You (the general you) have to give a little to get a little, trust now and he is more likely to be trustworthy in the future.  Isn't that how kids learn?

Same has to goes for Sam then. And as Ilovereading pointed out, Sam is still going behind Dean's back with some things. Nope. As adults who hunt and put their lives and souls on the line every day, I'd still go with getting to know and/or being aware of(as much as is possible) what and who you're dealing with than to trust blindly.

Granted sometimes there isn't a whole lot of time and then you have to go more with your gut and instincts. I think this is what Dean does.

Edited February 15, 2017 by Myrelle

[ILoveReading]

8 minutes ago, Casseiopeia said:

Exactly.  That was the point of Sacrifice.  Sam knew how many times he let Dean down, the latest being not looking for him.  That was why Sam would have died to prove that Dean could trust him to do the job. 

 

8 minutes ago, Casseiopeia said:

Exactly.  That was the point of Sacrifice.  Sam knew how many times he let Dean down, the latest being not looking for him.  That was why Sam would have died to prove that Dean could trust him to do the job. 

My problem is the wording.  By Sam saying "What happens when you decide I can't be trusted" it sounds like Sam is putting the burden of trust on Dean's shoulders.  That no matter what Sam does, Dean should still trust him above all else.  When Sam is still going behind Dean's back, it kind of invalidates this.

Edited February 15, 2017 by ILoveReading

[Myrelle]

7 minutes ago, AwesomO4000 said:

I respectfully disagree, because I think there was an easy way for the writers to show that we were supposed to agree with Sam's line of thinking: not try to make Benny the vampire with a heart of gold who contradicted all previous canon about monsters that the show ever had. The writers could even have made him somewhat grayer - like Lenore - because I would've understood Dean still feeling a bond with Benny even if he was more gray.* But nope, Benny had to be the nicest vampire ever, and they even gave him a hero's arc since he sacrificed himself willingly for Sam rather than Dean having to force him or bribe him to do it... which again would've been an easy way for the writers to sway us to Sam's way of thinking. So I disagree. For me, the tone was fairly pro-Benny/Dean throughout or at least compared to how they painted Sam it was. Benny wasn't gray enough for me to think otherwise.

* And ironically for me, that would've made a much more compelling story arc for Dean - if Dean was now so affected by purgatory that he had a "monster" friend, was he also so affected that he might be willing to overlook some iffy behavior because he and Benny had been brothers in arms for so long? And if so, could Dean come back to being himself and questioning it now that he was back in the real world? For me that would've been fascinating.

I honestly thought from the "show" that that arc(like the Ruby arc) was going to be more about Sam learning to trust Dean again, but nope, apparently Sam trusts Dean enough. Dean is the problem. Again, "show" not equating to "tell" to me. But we can agree to disagree even on that, if you wish.

Edited February 15, 2017 by Myrelle

[catrox14]

12 minutes ago, Casseiopeia said:

Exactly.  That was the point of Sacrifice.  Sam knew how many times he let Dean down, the latest being not looking for him.  That was why Sam would have died to prove that Dean could trust him to do the job

 I thought Sam was willing to die in that moment to close the Gates of Hell and save humanity from demons.

[Casseiopeia]

Quote

I thought Sam was willing to die in that moment to close the Gates of Hell and save humanity....

Yes he was but more importantly he wanted to prove to Dean he could get the job done no matter the cost.  Anyway it's just my interpretation.  I know a lot of fans felt differently.  The dialog could have been worded a little clearer.

[Myrelle]

10 minutes ago, AwesomO4000 said:

But when, besides Benny, had that ever happened before? (Which is why I think that Sam's reaction to Benny was not really in character.) Sam is perfectly fine with Castiel, a being that Sam knows that if there was ever a choice between him (Sam) and Dean, Castiel would drop Sam in a hot minute - and actually has done so (and it wasn't even a life or death situation.) Yet even knowing that, Sam fully accepts Castiel in Dean's - and his - life.

He included Cas in that speech, so he wasn't fine with him being a confidant of Dean's then, even though he certainly did put up a show of accepting him as "family". I don't understand why Dean has to trust Sam with every facet of his life. The hunt is a different thing, but Dean can trust others in areas of his life that he feels he can't trust with Sam. Or he should be allowed to, IMO. And again, as per Ilovereading's post, Sam still doesn't trust Dean with some things

[catrox14]

Just now, Casseiopeia said:

Yes he was but more importantly he wanted to prove to Dean he could get the job done no matter the cost.  Anyway it's just my interpretation.  I know a lot of fans felt differently.  The dialog could have been worded a little clearer.

I have to say that is an interpretation of that scene I've never read before.

Does that mean that the moment Sam killed the Hellhound and gave Dean the speech about seeing a light at the end of the tunnel when Dean didn't wasn't the real reason he opted to do the trials? 

[AwesomO4000]

11 minutes ago, ILoveReading said:

He's always the one who is told to let it go because there are more important things to deal with, while everyone else gets hold onto their anger and resentment.

That's a two way street also. When Dean made the deal, Dean told Sam not to be mad at him, and Sam had to let it go. Same with when Dean killed Amy behind Sam's back and lied about it: "stop acting like a bitch," and so Sam did and told Dean he was right about Amy. Dean tried the same thing in season 9 with Gadreel, but Sam wasn't having it that time, at least for a while. So, imo, Dean isn't the only one in the relationship told to let it go.

(Not that I thought Dean was told that in season 5. Sam outright told Dean that he could be angry - and even let Dean dig at him a few times on that front - but if they were going to work together, their working relationship couldn't be antagonistic. Sam was also at a disadvantage there, because Dean never told Sam the entire truth about why he came back to work with Sam, so Sam was going off incomplete information.)

[catrox14]

1 minute ago, Myrelle said:

He included Cas in that speech, so he wasn't fine with him being a confidant of Dean's then, even though he certainly did put up a show of accepting him as "family". I don't understand why Dean has to trust Sam with every facet of his life. The hunt is a different thing, but Dean can trust others in areas of his life that he feels he can't trust with Sam. Or he should be allowed to, IMO. And again, as per Ilovereading's post, Sam still doesn't trust Dean with some things

I have to say if Sam had kept his issues to Benny, I would have understood the scene better but when he through in Cas, who was Dean's best friend as someone Dean shouldn't trust over Sam...I have to say I threw my hands up on the whole episode. It made no sense for Sam to throw Cas under the bus and it really undermined his argument about trust, IMO. 

[AwesomO4000]

17 minutes ago, Myrelle said:

I honestly thought from the "show" that that arc(like the Ruby arc) was going to be more about Sam learning to trust Dean again, but nope, apparently Sam trusts Dean enough. Dean is the problem. Again, "show" not equating to "tell" to me. But we can agree to disagree even on that, if you wish.

Wait what? I don't get what you're saying here. The arc was about Sam trusting Dean - again.* That was my point. Dean says Benny is good, and Sam should trust him... voila Benny is good. It was straight forward, and so therefore to me, pretty dull, especially from a Dean standpoint. We already know Dean is trustworthy and is generally right about supernatural beings. Nothing new learned there. I even knew Benny was going to be good the moment we met him, because Dean said he was, so the entire story line was predictable for me. And to me the tone of the storyline supported the Benny is "good" or at least trying his best, throughout. I didn't see much in the way of the writers trying to sway me to Sam's side of it, because Benny never was acting all that iffy. Sam was the one acting iffy: hating Benny on sight, saying he was going to kill Benny before there was any reason to, Martin (really?), and allowing Dean to get knocked out. My point was that to me none of those things looked to be trying to sway me to side with Sam as you suggested. I just didn't see it.

My other point was that I would rather have had something new for Dean, even if that sort of made him a bit grayish / messed up/ whatever after coming back from purgatory at first, which to me would've been entirely understandable and actually interesting rather than just another straightforward "see, Sam should've trusted Dean because he was entirely right about the supernatural being's nature" arc.

*(We already had that whole arc in season 5 - Sam learning that he should've trusted Dean to start with rather than his own instincts, because Ruby was bad and Sam's need to be independent and feel strong on his own lead him to trust Ruby and therefore lead to his ultimate ruin).

[RulerofallIsurvey]

3 hours ago, Myrelle said:

and as long as Sam can refrain from any disdain/dislike he might have for those that Dean might choose to love, respect, and/or depend on besides Sam.

To be fair, Dean is also guilty of this.  First, there was Amy Pond, whom Sam liked and Dean obviously didn't, since he killed her and all.  (Since the conversation also included Sam not liking Benny, I think this is a valid comparison in this case.)  And as much as I disdain Amelia (and I really disdain Amelia...) when Dean first got back from Purgatory and meets up with Sam at the cabin, he's asking what happened with Sam and this is said:

Quote

DEAN: Hmm. So what was it, hmm? What could possibly make you stop just like that? A girl? Was there a girl?

SAM: The girl had nothing to do with it.

DEAN: There was a girl.

The way Dean said "a girl?  Was there a girl?" was pretty disdainful.  He hadn't even met Amelia (who turned out to be the 'woman Sam loved' [Ick]), and he was judging her because Sam loved/depended on her besides him.  Furthermore, Dean certainly didn't use Amelia as his patsy for the fake text in Torn and Frayed because he liked her so much.  

39 minutes ago, ILoveReading said:

He's always the one who is told to let it go because there are more important things to deal with, while everyone else gets hold onto their anger and resentment.

This is not entirely true.  Dean gives as well as he gets.  In "We need to talk about Kevin", Dean says (to Kevin, who just watched Crowley kill his girlfriend, "All right, listen to me. I'm sorry about your girlfriend, okay? I am. But the sooner you get this, the better. You're in it now, whether you like it or not. That means you do what you got to do. I'm hitting the head."   Wow.  Talk about being told to get over it!

My unpopular opinion here is I disagree with the absolutes like Dean Always This.  Sam Always That.  No, they don't.

[catrox14]

I think there is a difference between Sam's teen- age brief friendship with Amy Pond 15 years ago and Dean's  current highly intense, brother's in arms friendship with Benny who helped him survive a year in war  and helped him save Cas.  I guess for me that's why Sam comparing Amy to Benny rang hollow for me. It was a poor analogy for the show to make IMO.  They should have gone with Ruby even if it was old territory. Ruby consistently DID save Sam's life for over a year even though she betrayed him in the end. It was intense and a messed up bond but it was still there.  If Sam had been concerned that Benny would betray Dean like Ruby did, I think everything about that drama would have made a lot more sense.

[AwesomO4000]

31 minutes ago, catrox14 said:

I have to say if Sam had kept his issues to Benny, I would have understood the scene better but when he through in Cas, who was Dean's best friend as someone Dean shouldn't trust over Sam...I have to say I threw my hands up on the whole episode. It made no sense for Sam to throw Cas under the bus and it really undermined his argument about trust, IMO. 

Except that Castiel was acting weirdly most of the season and had been proven to be untrustworthy because of Angel Who Isn't Samantha Carter (for some reason, I can never remember that character's name) controlling him. And considering Castiel broke Sam's brain before he even got hopped up on all of those purgatory souls in season 6 - meaning that Castiel thought about and actually decided that breaking Sam's wall and potentially killing him was a legitimate strategy to persuade Dean to his side, then, well... Yes, Castiel is Dean's best friend, but that doesn't mean he doesn't have his own moments of stupid and untrustworthiness, just like Sam.

[catrox14]

1 hour ago, AwesomO4000 said:

But hasn't that been the case with almost everyone in Dean's life? Hasn't almost everyone let Dean down in some way or another. I suppose you could argue Benny - and in my opinion it was somewhat annoying of the show to go there, myself, entirely contradicting all previous canon, but okay - but Sam is family. For me, Sam was asking to be considered first when it came to trust, and as I said above, considering the other choices, I don't think it was all that unreasonable of a request. Obviously miles vary

Benny and Dean saved each other's lives every day for 365 days. That creates an intense bond, not entirely dissimilar to Dean and Cas. It's not blood but IMO, for Dean when someone sacrifices oneself for Dean or more importantly someone Dean loves, that person is going to always be considered family to Dean, blood or not. (I don't mean the villains that work with Dean and Sam)

I just never understood what Sam was asking Dean for other than to never put someone else in front of Sam. I suppose if Sam had told Dean he would make that same promise then I might have swallowed that a little better.

Edited February 15, 2017 by catrox14

[FlickChick]

14 minutes ago, RulerofallIsurvey said:

To be fair, Dean is also guilty of this.  First, there was Amy Pond, whom Sam liked and Dean obviously didn't, since he killed her and all.  (Since the conversation also included Sam not liking Benny, I think this is a valid comparison in this case.)  And as much as I disdain Amelia (and I really disdain Amelia...) when Dean first got back from Purgatory and meets up with Sam at the cabin, he's asking what happened with Sam and this is said:

The way Dean said "a girl?  Was there a girl?" was pretty disdainful.  He hadn't even met Amelia (who turned out to be the 'woman Sam loved' [Ick]), and he was judging her because Sam loved/depended on her besides him.  Furthermore, Dean certainly didn't use Amelia as his patsy for the fake text in Torn and Frayed because he liked her so much.  

This is not entirely true.  Dean gives as well as he gets.  In "We need to talk about Kevin", Dean says (to Kevin, who just watched Crowley kill his girlfriend, "All right, listen to me. I'm sorry about your girlfriend, okay? I am. But the sooner you get this, the better. You're in it now, whether you like it or not. That means you do what you got to do. I'm hitting the head."   Wow.  Talk about being told to get over it!

My unpopular opinion here is I disagree with the absolutes like Dean Always This.  Sam Always That.  No, they don't.

I agree about absolutes - nobody is perfect - including Sam and Dean. However, I agree with catrox, that the comparison of Amy Pond and Benny is a poor one. Amy had killed several people (however bad they were) and Benny had not killed any humans. But I believe that Sam immediately distrusted/disliked Benny and was not open to other ideas/feelings about him.

Dean didn't know Amelia at all. What Dean was pissed at was that Sam didn't look for him, gave up hunting, ditched his phones, didn't try to find out what happened to Kevin, and ran off to a life with a "girl". He finds all of this out as soon as he returns to our world after fighting for his life for one solid year! I'd be pissed too. I thought that Dean had every right to be angry with Sam, and yes, disappointed in him. JMO.